The U.S. border with Mexico extends nearly 2,000 miles along the southern borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, has primary federal responsibility for detecting and preventing illegal entry into the United States. At the same time, the Department of Justice (DOJ) plays an important role in border enforcement through prosecution, detainment, and incarceration of individuals who violate federal criminal laws related to alien smuggling, firearms trafficking, illegal immigration, and illegal drug importation.

In 1994, U.S. Attorney Offices along the Southwest Border began to establish partnerships with state and county prosecutors through which states and local governments began prosecuting federally initiated drug cases resulting from the illegal importation of controlled substances at the Southwest Border. As the number of federally declined criminal cases prosecuted by state and local governments began to increase, so did the related financial and resource burden on the states and localities. As a result, in fiscal year (FY) 1998, state and local prosecutors along the Southwest Border began informing the DOJ that they would no longer be able to prosecute federally initiated cases unless they received federal funds. To address these concerns, in 2000 Congress passed Public Law 106-246 to provide FY 2001 funding to state, county, parish, tribal, and municipal governments to reimburse them for costs associated with the prosecution and pre‑trial detention of federally initiated illegal immigration and drug and alien smuggling cases that subsequently are declined by the U.S. Attorneys offices and instead referred to state and local jurisdictions. However, none of the subsequent appropriations limit the types of federally initiated cases that are allowable for reimbursement. As a result, any federally initiated case that is declined by the U.S. Attorneys offices and subsequently prosecuted by an eligible state or local jurisdiction is allowable for reimbursement.

Initially, the program was administered by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) in DOJ. However, in FY 2002 the management of the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative (SWBPI) was transferred to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), DOJ’s grant-making arm.

From October 1, 2001, through September 31, 2006, OJP provided reimbursements totaling $161.13 million to the four Southwest Border states and local jurisdictions, as shown in Table 1.

Eligible SWBPI applicants submit quarterly electronic applications for reimbursement through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) SWBPI website. On the reimbursement applications, SWBPI recipients list the total number of cases in each of the three major categories based on the types of services provided: (1) prosecution only, (2) pre-trial detention only, and (3) both prosecution and pre-trial detention. The three major service categories are further broken down into four reimbursement categories based on the length of disposition: (1) 1 to 15 days, (2) 16 to 30 days, (3) 31 to 90 days, and (4) over 90 days.2

BJA does not require SWBPI applicants to provide documentation supporting the number of cases submitted for reimbursement through the electronic application. However, jurisdictions that receive SWBPI funds are required to retain documentation supporting the reimbursement requests for 3 years from the date the application is approved.

Reimbursement Amounts

Each eligible case may receive the following maximum reimbursement, based upon length of disposition, availability of funds, and the provision of both prosecution services and pre-trial detention services.

TABLE 2.
MAXIMUM SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS

LENGTH OF DISPOSITION

MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT

1 to 15 Days

$ 2,500

16 to 30 Days

5,000

31 to 90 Days

7,500

Over 90 Days

10,000

Source: OJP

To calculate the reimbursement amount for cases submitted for both prosecution and pre-trial detention services, the length of the prosecution takes precedence in calculating the case disposition category. For prosecution only and pre-trial detention only cases, each eligible case may receive 50 percent of the maximum reimbursement.

Case Eligibility

To be eligible for reimbursement under the SWBPI program, each case submitted must meet the following criteria.

The case must be initiated by a federal law enforcement agency.

The case must be declined for federal prosecution and referred to the local jurisdiction for prosecution.

The case must be prosecuted by a state or local jurisdiction.

The case must be disposed of during an eligible reporting period.

In addition, on each quarterly application the jurisdiction’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or designee must certify that the total amount requested for reimbursement, when combined with other federal funding, does not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs for SWBPI prosecution and pre-trial detention services. Further, the CEO or designee must certify that the SWBPI claim has been adjusted to account for additional prosecution and pre‑trial detention funding received through other federal programs.

Recent Guidance

Our audit generally covered SWBPI reimbursements awarded from FYs 2002 through 2006.3 Therefore, we used the SWBPI guidelines in effect during the period covered by our audit when conducting our analysis. However, in July 2007 OJP updated the SWBPI guidelines and made the following changes:

The new guidelines no longer state that recipients cannot receive reimbursements in excess of 100 percent of their actual annualized costs. Nonetheless, at the time SWBPI reimbursement applications are submitted, the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee is still required to certify that, “This application does not contain payment claims for cases already fully reimbursed by federal funds, or when combined with other federal reimbursement, grant, or payment funds, does not make payment claims in excess of 100 percent of the cost of prosecuting and or detaining case defendants in the reporting period.”

The July 2007 guidelines no longer contain the statement that when a case is submitted under the “both” category, the prosecution timeline takes precedence in determining the case reimbursement category. However, the OJP application still allows for cases to be submitted under the “both” category rather than requiring that prosecution and pre-trial detention reimbursements be submitted separately.

The July 2007 guidelines specify that new cases resulting from probation or parole violations and revocation hearings resulting from a previously reimbursed SWBPI case are not eligible for reimbursement. Further, extradition cases are also not eligible for reimbursement. Although none of these types of cases would have been eligible for reimbursement under the previous guidelines, the revised guidelines ensure that jurisdictions are aware of the fact that these types of cases are ineligible.

Prior Reports

Prior to the initiation of this audit, the OIG conducted three previous audits of individual SWBPI recipients to determine if the reimbursement requests submitted were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of SWBPI. The prior audits included review of the: (1) New Mexico Department of Public Safety (New Mexico DPS); (2) Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Arizona (Yuma County); and (3) Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Arizona (Maricopa County).4 Taken together, the prior SWBPI audits revealed dollar‑related findings totaling over $1.6 million.

Additionally, for the past 8 years grant management has been identified by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as one of DOJ’s top 10 management and performance challenges. Specifically, the OIG has reported that grant management continues to be a challenge for the following reasons:

OIG reviews continue to find that many grantees do not submit required financial and progress reports or do not submit them in a timely manner;

Numerous deficiencies continue to be found in DOJ’s monitoring of grantee activities;

OIG audits found that grant funds were not regularly awarded in a timely manner and that grantees were slow to spend available monies; and

OIG audits of grants have resulted in significant dollar‑related findings.

Although SWBPI is a reimbursement program rather than a grant program, in our judgment the same concerns related to OJP’s management and oversight of the program exist.

Audit Approach

We initiated this audit of SWBPI to:

Evaluate OJP’s administration and management of SWBPI reimbursements;

Identify additional federal programs with overlapping objectives; and

Determine if SWBPI reimbursement requests submitted by eligible jurisdictions are allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the SWBPI program.

The audit generally covered, but is not limited to, SWBPI reimbursements awarded from FYs 2002 through 2006. Audit work was conducted at OJP; the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and EOUSA.

Additionally, we conducted seven external audits of SWBPI recipients to determine if SWBPI reimbursements were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the SWBPI program. The external audits were conducted at the following selected SWBPI recipients: (1) New Mexico DPS; (2) Yuma County; (3) Maricopa County; (4) El Paso County Auditor’s Office, Texas (El Paso County); (5) San Diego District Attorney’s Office, California (San Diego); (6) Brooks County, Texas (Brooks County); and (7) City and County of San Francisco, California (San Francisco).

Results in Brief

We found that OJP does not adequately oversee the SWBPI program. Specifically:

OJP does not require applicants to provide documentation supporting reimbursement requests. In our judgment, most of the unallowable and unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, or 28 percent of the total reimbursements audited, identified in our seven external audits could have been avoided if OJP required applicants to submit supporting documents.5

OJP does not review the applications for accuracy or monitor recipients to determine the eligibility of cases submitted for reimbursement.

Reimbursements are not linked to actual costs incurred by the jurisdictions to prosecute federally declined‑referred criminal cases.6

OJP has not taken action to identify potential duplicate funding between the SWBPI program and other federally funded prosecution and pre-trial detention programs.

As noted above, SWBPI is intended to reimburse state and local governments for their costs associated with the prosecution and pre-trial detention of federally initiated criminal cases. Accordingly, on every SWBPI reimbursement application, the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee certifies that the SWBPI claim, combined with other federal funding, does not exceed 100 percent of the cost of prosecuting and detaining case defendants in the reporting period. However, we found that none of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any documentation to support costs associated with SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement, resulting in reimbursements totaling $49.78 million in excess of supported annualized costs. In our judgment, this is not consistent with the intent of the program to reimburse states and localities for their costs.

Additionally, on every SWBPI reimbursement application the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee is required to certify that the SWBPI claim has been adjusted to account for additional prosecution and pre-trial detention funding received through other federal programs. However, we found that with the exception of El Paso County, none of the jurisdictions included in our audit who received additional federal funding for prosecution and pre‑trial detention services took any steps to ensure that the SWBPI reimbursements, when combined with additional federal funding, did not exceed the cost to prosecute the SWBPI cases.7

In our judgment, the jurisdictions included in our audit made unsupported certifications in each quarterly SWBPI reimbursement application that: (1) the total federal funds provided to the jurisdiction for SWBPI cases during the reporting period did not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs for prosecution services; and (2) the SWBPI claim has been adjusted to account for additional funding received through other federal reimbursement or grant programs.

Finally, our external audits of the seven SWBPI recipients, who together received reimbursements totaling $55.11 million over a 5-year period, identified unallowable and unsupported SWBPI reimbursements of $15.57 million, which equates to 28 percent of the total reimbursements.8

The importance of the issues identified in our audit are reinforced by the fact that, as of the 4th quarter of FY 2006, OJP was only able to reimburse SWBPI applicants for 44 percent of the total maximum reimbursement amount because reimbursement requests exceeded available funding. If OJP ensured that only eligible cases were reimbursed and reimbursements were linked to the actual costs to prosecute and detain SWBPI defendants, additional funds would be available to more fully reimburse existing SWBPI jurisdictions for the actual costs of eligible cases.9

In our report, we make 13 recommendations to improve OJP’s management of the SWBPI program to ensure that reimbursement requests are limited to eligible cases; linked to and do not exceed actual costs; and adjusted to account for funds received from other federal prosecution and detention funding programs.

Our report contains detailed information on the full results of our review of the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative Reimbursement Program. The remaining sections of this Executive Summary describe in more detail our audit findings.

OJP’s Administration and Oversight of the Reimbursements

Our audit results revealed that OJP is not adequately overseeing the SWBPI program. We found that OJP does not require applicants to provide documentation supporting reimbursement requests. In our judgment, most of the unallowable and unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, or 28 percent of the total reimbursements audited, identified in our seven external audits could have been avoided if OJP required applicants to submit supporting documents.10 Additionally, OJP does not review SWBPI reimbursement applications for accuracy or conduct any monitoring activities of recipients to determine the eligibility of cases submitted for reimbursement.

In our judgment, OJP must require SWBPI recipients to submit a list of cases in support of the reimbursement requests. This list should include sufficient information to verify the eligibility of the cases submitted for reimbursement, including: (1) case number, (2) defendant name, (3) arrest date, (4) disposition date, (5) initiating federal law enforcement agency, and (6) referring federal agency. Additionally, for pre‑trial detention reimbursements the case list should include the defendant booking date and release date. This is consistent with the requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which requires a list of inmates, identifying information, and the length of detention.

Additionally, OJP should review reimbursement requests and the supporting case list to ensure that the number of cases submitted for reimbursement is accurate and that all cases submitted are eligible for reimbursement. Further, OJP should conduct monitoring activities of SWBPI recipients.

Reimbursement Not Linked To Actual Costs

We found that reimbursements were not based on actual costs incurred by the jurisdictions to prosecute federally declined‑referred criminal cases. We asked OJP officials to provide information on the methodology used to develop the reimbursement categories and corresponding amounts. However, they were unable to provide us with information regarding the basis used in establishing the reimbursement amounts.

We also conducted limited testing at the seven SWBPI recipients included in our audit to determine the correlation between reimbursement categories and actual costs for prosecution and detention. Based on our analysis, we found that SWBPI recipients received reimbursements totaling $49.78 million in excess of supported annualized costs. The significant amount of SWBPI reimbursements in excess of supported costs was predominately due to the fact that none of the jurisdictions included in our audit tracked or maintained data supporting the costs associated with prosecuting SWBPI cases. However, each jurisdiction was able to provide documentation to support their actual cost per day for pre‑trial detention services. As a result, we were able to calculate the actual annualized pre‑trial detention costs for SWBPI cases.

Pursuant to the FY 2002 Appropriations Act and all subsequent DOJ appropriations, SWBPI is intended to reimburse states and localities for prosecution and pre-trial detention costs associated with federally initiated criminal cases. Accordingly, on each SWBPI application the recipient certified that total federal reimbursements did not exceed 100 percent of actual prosecution and pre‑trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. Nevertheless, as noted above, we found that SWBPI recipients received reimbursements of $49.78 million in excess of supported costs. In our judgment, this is inconsistent with a statutory scheme that is intended to reimburse recipients for actual costs.

In our view, OJP should obtain sufficient cost data from each SWBPI recipient to ensure that reimbursements are linked to actual costs associated with SWBPI cases. We do not believe it necessary for SWBPI recipients to create elaborate cost accounting systems to determine the actual costs for each case. However, each recipient should at least track and maintain sufficient data on the costs associated with SWBPI cases to support its certification that total federal funds received do not exceed 100 percent of the annualized costs for its SWBPI cases. This is consistent with the requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as SCAAP, which requires that recipients provide actual cost information to determine the per day reimbursement rate.

We also found the reimbursements were not linked to actual costs because of the current policy of basing reimbursements for cases submitted under the “both” prosecution and pre-trial detention category on the number of days to prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time the defendant was detained. Our analysis of cases submitted under the over-90 day “both” category revealed that on average pre-trial detention services for 69 percent of these cases would have been reimbursed at a lesser amount based on the number of days the defendant was detained.

Additionally, prosecution services are reimbursed at the same amounts as pre-trial services, even though there is no evidence that prosecution and pre‑trial detention costs are similar and therefore should be reimbursed at the same rate. Further, there is no evidence that these amounts accurately reflect the actual average prosecution and detention costs for each Southwest Border jurisdiction.

As stated previously, none of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit tracked the costs to prosecute SWBPI cases. However, we were able to obtain the daily pre-trial detention costs for six of the seven jurisdictions.11 Based on our analysis of the daily pre‑trial detention rates, we determined that daily detention rates among the six jurisdictions ranged from $110.69 per day in San Diego, to $46.00 per day in Brooks County, a difference of $64.69 per day. We also found that the average daily detention reimbursement rate among the six jurisdictions included in our audit was $71.57. However, the average daily SWBPI detention reimbursements for the 1 to 15, 16 to 30, and 31 to 90 day reimbursement categories are $206.98, $112.79, and $67.97 respectively, which in general is significantly higher than the actual average daily detention rates for the SWBPI recipients.

SWBPI reimbursements are also based on the number of days the case was open rather than the time and effort spent on prosecuting the case which, in our judgment, does not accurately reflect actual prosecution costs because SWBPI cases vary in complexity. For example, in a simple case related to the possession of a controlled substance by a sole defendant, the prosecutor may expend very little time and effort, compared to a complex case with multiple defendants that may involve significantly more time and effort on the part of the prosecutor. However, the trial date for both cases may be set for more than 90 days after the defendant was arrested. Therefore, both cases would be reimbursed at the “over 90 day” rate, even though the actual costs associated with prosecuting the cases were vastly different.

Finally, in our judgment using the number of days the defendant is detained is an accurate measure of the pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. However, because SWBPI reimbursements are based on a broad range of days rather than the actual number of days, generally reimbursements for pre-trial detention services far exceed actual costs. For example, for pre‑trial detention only cases that fall into the 1 to 15 day reimbursement category, the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements range from $625 per day to $83 per day; the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements for the 16 to 30 day category range from $156 per day to $83 per day; and the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements for the 31 to 90 day category range from $ 121 per day to $42 per day depending on the number of days the defendant was actually detained. However, the average daily detention rate for the jurisdictions included in our audit was $71.57 per day. Therefore, using the broad range of days rather than the actual number of days for SWBPI pre-trial detention reimbursements can result in reimbursements far in excess of actual costs.

In sum, as a result of not linking reimbursement rates to actual costs, jurisdictions may receive reimbursements in excess of their actual costs. As of the 4th quarter of FY 2006, SWBPI applicants only received 44 percent of the maximum reimbursement amount because reimbursement requests exceeded available funding.12 If OJP ensured that only eligible cases were reimbursed and reimbursements were linked to the actual costs to prosecute and detain SWBPI defendants, additional funds would be available to more fully reimburse actual costs for eligible cases.

Additional Federal Programs with Overlapping Objectives

At the time the SWBPI reimbursement applications are submitted, the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee is required to certify that the SWBPI claim has been adjusted to account for additional prosecution and pre‑trial detention funding received through other federal programs. We found that only one of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit took steps to adjust their claims to account for additional funding from overlapping federal programs, and that OJP has not taken action to identify potential duplicate funding between the SWBPI program and other federal programs.

We identified three major federal programs that provide funding to state and local jurisdictions for prosecution and detention services, each of which may partially duplicate funding provided through the SWBPI program. These programs are ONDCP High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Drug Prosecution Initiatives, OJP’s Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne Grant Program), and the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS ICE), SCAAP.13

Federal Prosecution Funding

In addition to SWBPI reimbursements, we determined that six of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit also received HIDTA, Byrne grant, and other federal prosecution funds totaling $27 million during the review period, as shown in Table 3.14

With the exception of El Paso County, none of the six other jurisdictions included in our audit took steps to ensure that the SWBPI reimbursements, when combined with additional federal funding received for prosecution and pre‑trial detention services, did not exceed the cost to prosecute the SWBPI cases. Although El Paso County did not track its costs to prosecute SWBPI cases, it deducted $1.51 million from its SWBPI reimbursement requests in an attempt to ensure that federal funding did not exceed 100 percent of the costs to prosecute the SWBPI case.

Federal Detention Funding

OJP also administers SCAAP in conjunction with the DHS ICE. SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incur correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. Since the SWBPI program also includes reimbursement for pre-trial detention services, we looked at the possibility of duplicate funding between SCAAP and the SWBPI.

We found that four of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit received SCAAP funds totaling $95,559 for pre-trial detention services provided in SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement.15 However, we found that none of the jurisdictions had taken any action to ensure they were not receiving duplicate SCAAP funds for these same cases.

In our judgment, the jurisdictions included in our audit made unsupported certifications in each quarterly SWBPI reimbursement application because they did not adjust their claims to account for the total additional funding received through other federal reimbursement or grant programs.16

We met with OJP officials to discuss the possibility of duplicate funding between the SWBPI program and other federal programs that provide funding for prosecution and pre-trial detention services. Based on our discussion, we found that OJP has not taken any action to identify any potential duplicate funding between the three programs. Specifically, the OJP official responsible for both the SWBPI program and SCAAP stated that there is not enough information collected from the SWBPI reimbursements to identify any such duplicate funding.

In our opinion, OJP should ensure that recipients make the necessary adjustments to the SWBPI applications to account for other federal prosecution and pre‑trial detention funding. In addition, OJP should review SWBPI reimbursement applications to identify potential duplicate funding requests.

Allowability of Reimbursements

We conducted seven external audits of individual SWBPI recipients to determine if SWBPI reimbursements were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the SWBPI program. Our audits covered SWBPI reimbursements totaling $55.11 million and identified unallowable and unsupported SWBPI reimbursements of $15.57 million, which equates to 28 percent of the total reimbursements.17 In our judgment, the significant amount of dollar-related findings identified during our audits of SWBPI recipients is due in part to the fact that OJP is not adequately monitoring the SWBPI program. Specifically,

339 cases were submitted for reimbursement in the wrong quarter resulting in questioned costs of $793,933.

1,637 cases were not eligible for reimbursement, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8.28 million and funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500, as shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM PRIOR OIG SWBPI AUDITS

NOT FEDERALLY INITIATED

RECORD RETENTION PROBLEMS

DUPLICATE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED

DEFENDANT NOT DETAINED OVERNIGHT

TOTALS

TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES

985

208

142

302

1,637

TOTAL QUESTIONED COSTS

$5,164,302

$826,003

$888,517

$1,399,134

$8,277,956

TOTAL FUNDS TO BETTER USE

$ 17,500

$ 10,000

0

0

$ 27,500

Source: Prior OIG SWBPI audits

This finding further demonstrates that OJP should require SWBPI recipients to submit a list of cases in support of reimbursement requests. Additionally, OJP should review reimbursement requests and the supporting case list to ensure that the number of cases submitted for reimbursement is accurate and that all cases submitted are eligible for reimbursement.

Finally, at each of the seven sites included in our audit, we asked the responsible officials for feedback on OJP’s administration of the SWBPI program. Officials in all seven jurisdictions stated that OJP has not provided any training on the SWBPI guidelines.

Based on the results of our external audits and the comments we received from the seven jurisdictions, OJP needs to provide training to the participating jurisdictions to help clarify the requirements of the SWBPI program.

Recommendations

The OIG made 13 recommendations to improve OJP’s management of the SWBPI program to ensure that:

reimbursement requests only include eligible cases;

reimbursement amounts are linked to actual costs; and

reimbursements do not exceed actual costs and are adjusted to reflect other federal prosecution and detention funding received by SWBPI participants.

Footnotes

Throughout this report, differences in the total amounts are due to rounding.

Case disposition is the length of time between a suspect’s arrest and the resolution (e.g., dismissal, plea, conviction) of the criminal charges through a county or state judicial process.

OJP has accepted applications for all of FY 2007, but as of January 31, 2008, had not made any reimbursements for FY 2007 SWBPI submissions.

Our audit of the New Mexico DPS included the 2nd, 3rd, and 11th Judicial Districts.

It should be noted that the dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the seven SWBPI recipients were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are not offering any recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable and unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use.

Declined-referred is a term used in the SWBPI guidelines to refer to a point in time during a federal investigation when a U.S. Attorney or federal law enforcement official decides not to pursue federal criminal charges against a defendant (declination) and requests that a state or local jurisdiction prosecute the defendant for violating state or local criminal statutes (referral).

Although El Paso County did not track its costs to prosecute SWBPI cases, $1.51 million was deducted from its SWBPI reimbursement requests in an attempt to ensure that federal funding did not exceed 100 percent of the costs associated with the cases submitted.

We also identified funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500 related to unsupported and ineligible cases submitted for reimbursement that had not yet been paid.

No jurisdictions were reimbursed in the 4th quarter of FY 2004 because no funds were available. In addition, for the quarters ended December 31, 2004, March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005, September 30, 2005, December 31, 2005, March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006, and September 30, 2006, SWBPI recipients received pro-rata reimbursements of 49.29 percent, 44.08 percent, 47.40 percent, 50.16 percent, 53.18 percent, 47.61 percent, 43.09 percent, and 44.05 percent respectively.

It should be noted that the dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the seven SWBPI recipients were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are not offering any recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable and unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use.

We did not obtain daily pre-trial detention costs from the New Mexico DPS because it only submits reimbursement requests for prosecution services.

No jurisdictions were reimbursed in the 4th quarter of FY 2004 because no funds were available. In addition, for the quarters ended December 31, 2004, March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005, September 30, 2005, December 31, 2005, March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006, and September 30, 2006, SWBPI recipients received pro-rata reimbursements of 49.29 percent, 44.08 percent, 47.40 percent, 50.16 percent, 53.18 percent, 47.61 percent, 43.09 percent, and 44.05 percent respectively.

The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 merged the Byrne Grant Program with the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (LLEBG) to create the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

We did not analyze possible duplicate SCAAP funding for the New Mexico DPS because it only submits reimbursement requests for prosecution services. As a result, our audit only included SWBPI reimbursements for prosecution services. SWBPI pre‑trial detention reimbursement requests are submitted through the State of New Mexico’s counties. Also, we did not analyze possible duplicate funding for Brooks County or San Francisco. Brooks County did not receive SCAAP funding between FYs 2002 through 2006 and San Francisco did not provide a listing of SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursements.

Although El Paso County did not track its costs to prosecute SWBPI cases, it deducted $1.51 million from its SWBPI reimbursement requests in an attempt to ensure that federal funding did not exceed 100 percent of the costs to prosecute the SWBPI case. However El Paso County did not make any adjustments for SCAAP payments they received.

In addition, we identified funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500 related to unsupported and ineligible cases submitted for reimbursement that had not yet been paid. The questioned costs of $15.57 million and funds to be put to better use of $27,500 were previously addressed in our external audit reports on the seven SWBPI recipients included in our audit.

Of the $5.92 million in excess reimbursements, $5.41 million was specific to San Francisco. Although, San Francisco provided two separate lists in support of the SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement, according to San Francisco officials neither list was representative of the SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement because the SWBPI submissions were not based on actual cases. As a result, we found that all of the SWBPI reimbursements submitted by San Francisco were not supported.